Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > April 1991 Decisions > A.M. No. P-89-327 April 19, 1991 - THELMA GARCIA v. ROMEO EULLARAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-89-327. April 19, 1991.]

ATTY. THELMA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. ROMEO EULLARAN, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR OF EVERYONE CONNECTED WITH THE JUDICIARY SHOULD BE CIRCUMSCRIBED WITH THE HEAVY BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY; REASON. — The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility (Montemayor v. Collado, 107 SCRA 258). A public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission which diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.


R E S O L U T I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


In a sworn letter-complaint dated April 7, 1989 Atty. Thelma Garcia, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, charged Mr. Romeo Eullaran, Staff Assistant II of the same court with alleged violation of Rule 9, Section 36, subsections 3, 4, 8, 15, 17, 25 and 27 of P.D. 807, Civil Service Decree of the Philippines.

Complainant alleged that respondent committed the alleged violations in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That respondent does not perform his regular functions and refuses to perform those assigned to him, in violation of Subsec. (3), Neglect of Duty;

2. That on March 31, 1989, at about 2:30 P.M., respondent entered the Office of the Clerk of Court drunk, fought with Gilbert Solis, causing disruption in the normal functions, a violation of Subsec. (4), Misconduct;

3. Respondent’s non-performance of his function and non-observance of office hours violates Sub-sec. (8), inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;

4. Respondent has more unauthorized absences than days present, violation of Subsec. (13), Frequent unauthorized absences;

5. Respondent is always late when reporting for duty, a violation of Subsec. (14), Tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours;

6. Respondent appeared many times during office hours in the office under the influence of liquor and sometimes drunk, a violation of Subsec. 15, Habitual drunkenness;

7. Respondent refused to perform official duty as Clerk, a violation of Subsec. 17, Refusal to perform official duty;

8. Respondent wilfully disobeys instructions from his superior, such as filing of daily time record and leave of absences, a violation of Subsec. (25), Insubordination;

9. Respondent’s refusal to perform his duties, habitual absenteeism and tardiness, misbehavior, disrupting operation of the office and disobedience in filing daily time records and leave of absences are violations of Subsec. (27), Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;

. . ." (pp. 1-2, Annex "A")

In substantiating her complaint, complainant submitted a letter dated April 3, 1989 addressed to the Executive Judge, RTC, Dumaguete City which states a narration of incidents which led to an accusation for alleged misconduct and on the alleged habitual absentism, tardiness and inefficiency (Annex "A") and in addition thereto, affidavits of four other court employees namely: Gilbert Solis, Fidel Factoran, Rodolfo Forniza and Rogelio Baylon, marked as Annexes "B," "C," "D," "E," all in corroboration of the activities complained of.chanrobles law library : red

The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, pursuant to this Court’s Administrative Order No. 6 dated June 30, 1975 issued an order dated April 8, 1989 ordering respondent Romeo Eullaran to submit within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt, his answer to the complaint and to indicate therein whether or not a formal investigation is preferred.

Respondent failed to file his answer without any reason given for such failure despite the extension of time given him to answer. Meanwhile, his request for temporary assignment at RTC Branch 36 was granted per Order dated April 18, 1989.

In a Report and Recommendation dated May 4, 1989, submitted pursuant to Section 40, P.D. 807, the Executive Judge took notice of the failure of the respondent to file his answer and "interpreted the same as an admission of guilt on his part" and opined that the instant case appeared "proper for summary proceedings under Section 40, P.D. 807" in view of the following circumstances present: a) the charge is serious and evidence is strong; b) respondent is notoriously undesirable. The sworn statements and documents submitted were considered direct evidence for the complainant and recommended that proper penalty be imposed upon the Respondent.

By way of a 7th indorsement dated August 13, 1990 of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernard, respondent Romeo Eullaran was given the chance of being heard and to refute the allegations against him.

Respondent submitted his comment dated September 14, 1990 and stated therein that "he has not intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously committed the charges lodged against him . . . He admits having committed unintentional omission or mistake." (Rollo, p. 45).

Anent the charge of misconduct and habitual drunkenness, respondent claimed that the incident on March 31, 1989 complained of, was indeed regrettable. While he also admits that after lunch, on said date, he took a bottle or two of beer, he claimed that he is not a habitual drinker, as alleged by the complainant. He also claimed that whenever he drinks, he drinks outside office hours. Moreover, he claimed that the quarrel between him and Gilbert G. Solis, was caused by personal misunderstanding, which was immediately patched up.

Regarding the charge of unauthorized absences and tardiness in reporting for duty, respondent contended that the records would show that he has filed the corresponding vacation or sick leave applications. The alleged unauthorized absences were due to health reasons and hence, notice thereof and the filing of the required application for sick leave could not be filed within the prescribed period. He too admits that sometimes he is tardy in reporting for duty, especially on Mondays following weekends, whenever he goes to his hometown some kilometers away from Dumaguete City. But again, this is few and far between. Respondent denied that he has been loafing during office hours. In his defense, he claimed that he takes a few minutes rest after doing his work or during coffee breaks at a place near the court buildings.

Respondent finally claimed that he honestly believed that he conducted himself in the performance of his duties at his best and if he conducted himself to the prejudice of the service such behavior was not intended and without malice.cralawnad

We find the explanation of the respondent unsatisfactory. He was not able to refute the accusations made against him. As can be noted in his comment, the reasons given by the respondent are on the contrary, demonstrative of whimsical and abusive acts of a government employee which are prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility (Montemayor v. Collado, 107 SCRA 258). A public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission which diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

Premises, considered, the Court Resolved to hold respondent liable as charged.

ACCORDINGLY, a FINE of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) is imposed on respondent Romeo Eullaran, payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent’s personal records.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 74854 April 2, 1991 - JESUS DACOYCOY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75504 April 2, 1991 - VICENTE CU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79981 April 2, 1991 - ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-238 April 8, 1991 - GENEROSO V. MIRASOL v. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-89-348 April 8, 1991 - ESTELITA PADRONES v. MELCHOR DIVINAGRACIA

  • G.R. No. 49470 April 8, 1991 - DARIO N. LOZANO v. IGNACIO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. 52179 April 8, 1991 - MUN. OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. 55109 April 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO M. AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 73647 April 8, 1991 - JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83959 April 8, 1991 - RUPERTO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991 - CECILIO S. DE VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89745 April 8, 1991 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991 - RUBEN SAW v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90596 April 8, 1991 - SOLID MANILA CORPORATION v. BIO HONG TRADING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2709-RTC April 16, 1991 - MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v. RODOLFO P. TORRELLA

  • G.R. No. 85718 April 16, 1991 - FEDERICO CARANDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87119 April 16, 1991 - GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88589 April 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO D. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. 91259 April 16, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • G.R. No. 91925 April 16, 1991 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. ANTONIO J. ROXAS

  • A.M. No. P-89-327 April 19, 1991 - THELMA GARCIA v. ROMEO EULLARAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-570 April 19, 1991 - ANTONIO SOYANGCO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • A.C. No. 2152 April 19, 1991 - TEODORO I. CHAVEZ v. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA

  • A.C. No. 2697 April 19, 1991 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. CIPRIANO A. TAN

  • A.C. No. 2731 April 19, 1991 - GLORIA DELA ROSA OBIA v. BASILIO M. CATIMBANG

  • G.R. No. 73610 April 19, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78162 April 19, 1991 - J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • G.R. Nos. 85939 & 86968 April 19, 1991 - NEW PANGASINAN REVIEW, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92299 April 19, 1991 - REYNALDO R. SAN JUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95861 April 19, 1991 - FRANCISCO L. ABALOS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 31408 April 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42725 April 22, 1991 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45125 April 22, 1991 - LORETA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50501 April 22, 1991 - RODOLFO GUIANG v. RICARDO C. SAMANO

  • G.R. No. 74783 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO B. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 75389 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO B. MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. 75894 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TUGBO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76562 April 22, 1991 - ROGER B. PATRICIO v. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO

  • G.R. No. 76953 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO MANDAPAT

  • G.R. No. 77315 April 22, 1991 - CIRCLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80767 April 22, 1991 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82985 April 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 85647 April 22, 1991 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92570 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. v. GUILLERMO CARAGUE

  • G.R. No. 94925 April 22, 1991 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94951 April 22, 1991 - APEX MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991 - MY SAN BISCUITS INC. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 78254 April 25, 1991 - JOINT MOH-MOLE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78556 April 25, 1991 - ALFARO FORTUNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83354 April 25, 1991 - LEON MATEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90296 April 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES M. INDAYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-466 April 26, 1991 - DOMINGA AZOR v. SOFRONIO G. SAYO

  • A.C. No. 1302,1391 and 1543 April 26, 1991 - PAULINO VALENCIA v. ARSENIO FER. CABANTING

  • G.R. No. 45142 April 26, 1991 - SIMPROSA VDA. DE ESPINA, ET AL. v. OTILIO ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 49839-46 April 26, 1991 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. PEDRO ALMANZOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51461 April 26, 1991 - CRISPIN DASALLA, SR. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 69344 April 26, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76212 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO TUGBANG

  • G.R. No. 83957 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CABANBAN

  • G.R. No. 84728 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ATENTO

  • G.R. No. 86641 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIC C. ANSING

  • G.R. No. 88838 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES MOKA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92586 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. PUEDAN

  • G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991 - ROMEO G. ELEPANTE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 50098 April 30, 1991 - ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK v. RAMON V. JAPSON

  • G.R. No. 69999 April 30, 1991 - LUZVIMINDA VISAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 71835 April 30, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74670-74 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLY S. GANOHON

  • G.R. No. 76211 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO M. CUYO

  • G.R. No. 76585 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 81374 April 30, 1991 - JOSE R. BAUTISTA v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 85322 April 30, 1991 - ALFREDO M. ALMEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86042 April 30, 1991 - FEAGLE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MAURO DORADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86517 April 30, 1991 - ANDRES MAMA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86760 April 30, 1991 - CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 87215 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO I. DE LAS MARINAS

  • G.R. No. 87928 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS F. GRAZA

  • G.R. No. 88631 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO COLLADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92505 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MOTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92591 April 30, 1991 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92658 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94151 April 30, 1991 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94209 April 30, 1991 - FEATI BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94436 April 30, 1991 - LAGRIMAS V. ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.